MUSETECH Evaluation Criteria by Cluster

From CLIO

Revision as of 21:54, 15 November 2021 by Metaphoraccoon (talk | contribs) (1 revision imported)

Overview

Label important.png

The MUSETECH Model[1] posits that in order for museums to successfully utilize technologies, there are three stakeholder perspectives that must be considered. Throughout all stages of a museum technology project, these perspectives offer views that complement and inform the others in a way that can build institutional synergy. This model also states that there are four primary stages or constituents of a museum technology project. These quartiles contain evaluation criteria per perspective, grouped by thematic categories, which allows for a granular overview of the considerations throughout each stage of the technology project.

Design Quartile

D1. Design and product ideation

Cultural Heritage Professional

D1Pa. Design concept

The main goal or concept that is to be achieved with a specific technology idea or application. Cutting edge or novel technologies without an established use may be difficult to fully conceptualize[2].

D1Pb. Integration with exhibit

This criteria is about how well the technology will or can be integrated into the exhibit or other things on display.

D1Pc. Integration with other ICT

This criteria relates to how well the technology integrates with other Information and Communication technologies. Can this technology be used with other on-site, off-site or online technologies used by the institution?

D1Pd. Balance of physical with digital

This criteria relates to the balance between physical and digital elements within an exhibit or display. Certain technologies can "overshadow" a visitors connection with an exhibit or the objects on display[3].

D1Pe. Clear understanding of the fabrication process

This criteria is about the clarity and understanding of the fabrication, installation and deployment process for the technology by Cultural Heritage Professionals.

D1Pf. Level of in-house technical knowledge

This criteria considers whether there is enough in-house technical knowledge to independently manage the project, or if support and consultation will be required by external contractors to fully manage this project.

Museum Institution

D1Ma. Level of Innovation and business intelligence

What value does this technology and this specific approach add for your institution?

D1Mb. Brand name, uniqueness, originality

This criterion is about whether the technology used serves the museum's brand and reputation[4].

D1Mc. Integration with other ICT

This criterion evaluates how the new technology or project would integrate into the existing digital framework of the institution.

D1Md. Budget

This criterion is about the financial considerations that may be associated with a technology project, including a cost versus benefit analysis.

D1Me. Staff acceptance

This criterion relates to the staff of the institution and their willingness to adopt and embrace the new technology, or if it will merely be tolerated.

Visitor

D1Va. Co-design, front-end evaluation and visitor acceptance

This criterion is related to initiatives that include visitors in the early design and evaluation phases[5].

D2. Experience design and narratives

Cultural Heritage Professional

D2Pa. Experience added value

This criterion relates to how the technology mediation relates to the application it is being used it, because different technologies offer different visitor experiences.

D2Pb. Relevance to audience

This criterion relates to the relevancy of the content on display to the intended audience.

D2Pc. Tailored content

This criterion relates to how a Cultural Heritage Professional might tailor the content and narrative to different visitors' profiles.

D2Pd. Attentional balance

This criterion relates to the attentional balance of the technology and physical elements of an exhibit.

D2Pe. Social interaction

This criterion considers the role this technology can have in fostering and facilitating social interaction in real and virtual spaces.

D2Pf. Before and after the visit support

This criterion relates to the potential of the technology linking pre- and post-visit activities.

Museum Institution

D2Ma. Interpretive, educational and learning potential

This criterion relates to the interpretive, educational and learning potential that the technology project may provide.

D2Mb. Personalization potential

This criterion relates to the museum's potential for providing personalized content for visitors through a customization, context-awareness or adaptivity mechanism. This is distinct from the "tailored content" provided by Cultural Heritage Professionals.

D2Mc. Public outreach and communication

This criterion relates to the potential of a museum using this technology to connect with their communities[6].

D2Md. Big data potential

This criterion relates to the big data potential provided by some technology solutions that can offer useful insight into visitor preferences.

Visitor

D2Va. Engagement

This criterion refers to the opportunities offered to visitors to engage them on a physical, emotional, intellectual, social, cognitive or proprioceptive level[7].

D2Vb. Personalization

Personalization of content and narratives for specific visitors should increate engagement.

D2Vc. Learning, entertainment and edutainment

Edutainment is both instructive and fun, providing both learning and entertainment[8]. Pleasant and positive memories are favored over unpleasant memories[9].

D2Vd. Attentional balance

This criterion relates to how a visitor balances their attention between the physical object and the technology.

D2Ve. Affective impact

This criterion relates to the emotional resonance that a digital resource may invoke from a visitor. A number of studies have highlighted the increasing importance of emotion and affect for learning[10][11].

D2Vf. Social interaction

This criterion is related to the relevant criteria from the Cultural Heritage Professional perspective (D2Pe).

D2Vg. Ability to follow usage on other platforms

This criterion is about how a visitor may follow up with or access something they initially experienced in a different context.

D2Vh. Sense of belonging to a community

This criterion relates to empowering visitors to feel that they are part of a local, regional, national or international community[12].

D3. Interactions, affordances, and interaction metaphors

Cultural Heritage Professional

D3Pa. Quality of Affordances

Affordances are the intrinsic properties of a thing that provide clues about how it can be used[13].

D3Pb. Suitability of interaction metaphors

This criterion is related to the efficacy of an interactive's physical form to communicate it's function.

D3Pc. Interface design

This criterion relates to how clean, clear and comprehensive the interface is, regardless of the form it takes.

D3Pd. Clarity of navigation

This criterion relates to how intuitively and successfully someone can navigate within contents or the physical space being augmented.

D3Pe. Follow-up usage on other platforms

This criterion is about how a visitor may follow up with or access something they initially experienced in a different context.

D3Pf. Multisensoriality

This criterion refers to the inclusion of additional senses beside seeing, reading or hearing.

Museum Institution

D3Ma. Follow-up usage on other platforms

This criterion is about how a visitor may follow up with or access something they initially experienced in a different context.

D3Mb. Brand name, uniqueness and originality

This criterion is about how an interactive communicates the brand identity of the museum.

Visitor

D3Va. Utility, usability and ease of use
D3Vb. Intuitiveness, learnability and learning curve
D3Vc. Responsiveness
D3Vd. Clarity of navigation
D3Ve. Personalization
D3Vf. Social interaction
D3Vg. Follow-up usage on other platforms
D3Vh. Multisensoriality

D4. Aesthetics, look and feel and visceral qualities

Cultural Heritage Professional

D4Pa. Look and feel

Museum Institution

D4Ma. Brand name, uniqueness and originality

Visitor

D4Va. Look and feel

Content Quartile

C1. Content creation

Cultural Heritage Professional

C1Pa. Utility, usability and ease of use
C1Pb. Learnability and learning curve
C1Pc. Personalization and adaptation
C1Pd. Multilingualism
C1Pe. Community support
C1Pf. Technology knowledge and support in the house
C1Pg. Interoperability

Museum Institution

C1Ma. Continuity of usage
C1Mb. Logging

Visitor

C1Va. Perceived content quality
C1Vb. Visitor-created content, creation and curation

C2. Content maintenance

Cultural Heritage Professional

C2Pa. Ability to make changes in-house
C2Pb. Potential for documenting and archiving

Museum Institution

C2Ma. Staff acceptance
C2Mb. Interoperability and modularity

Visitor

C2Va. Personalization
C2Vb. Social interaction and sharing
C2Vc. Continuity of usage

Compliance Quartile

MP1. Health, safety and accessibility

Cultural Heritage Professional

MP1Pa. Accessibility
MP1Pb. Appropriateness
MP1Pc. Safety

Museum Institution

MP1Ma. Safety
MP1Mb. Emergency management
MP1Mc. Disposal and recycling
MP1Md. Hygiene, cleaning and maintenance

Visitor

MP1Va. Accessibility
MP1Vb. Appropriateness
MP1Vc. Safety

MP2. Logging and monitoring

Cultural Heritage Professional

MP2Pa. Logging and monitoring

Museum Institution

MP2Ma. Log storage, access, privacy and analytics

Visitor

MP2Va. Personalization
MP2Vb. Legal compliance

MP3. Ethics and legal issues

Cultural Heritage Professional

MP3Pa. Protecting audiences
MP3Pb. Data gathering and protection

Museum Institution

MP3Ma. Other legal issues
MP3Mb. Data protection laws
MP3Mc. Ethics for gathering data

Visitor

MP3Va. Trust and confidence in museum

Operation Quartile

O1. Deployment and setting-up

Cultural Heritage Professional

O1Pa. Ease of use for installation
O1Pb. Distance monitoring
O1Pc. Workflow
O1Pd. In-house technical knowledge
O1Pe. Additional staff training

Museum Institution

O1Ma. Set-up and start up
O1Mb. Modularity and interoperability
O1Mc. Staff and front-desk training
O1Md. Distribution, recovery and guarantee

Visitor

O1Va. Visitor experience quality and customer care
O1Vb. Visitor-owned devices

O2. Robustness and maintenance

Cultural Heritage Professional

O2Pa. Environmental contraints
O2Pb. Robustness
O2Pc. Maintenance required
O2Pd. Updating and replacing

Museum Institution

O2Ma. Storage cost
O2Mb. Level of maintenance
O2Mc. Loss, deterioration, theft and replacement
O2Md. Reusing and disposing

Visitor

O2Va. Robustness
O2Vb. Responsiveness
O2Vc. Stability
O2Vd. Speed and speed of recovery

O3. Power and energy

Cultural Heritage Professional

O3Pa. Day to day running and maintenance
O3Pb. Stability

Museum Institution

O3Ma. Interventions in the exhibit space

Visitor

O3Va. Prevent feelings of failure and frustration

O4. Costs

Cultural Heritage Professional

O4Pa. Workforce, time and additional staff

Museum Institution

O4Ma. Financial costs and investments
O4Mb. Running costs

Visitor

O4Va. Costs (value for money and time)

O5. Additional Resources

Cultural Heritage Professional

O5Pa. Instructions and how-to guides

Museum Institution

O5Ma. Adopting, financing and sponsoring

Visitor

O5Va. Uptake

References

  1. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3297717
  2. Areti Damala and Nenad Stojanovic. 2012. Tailoring the Adaptive Augmented Reality (A2R) museum visit: Identifying Cultural Heritage professionals' motivations and needs. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality - Arts, Media, and Humanities (ISMAR-AMH). Atlanta, USA, IEEE, 71-80.
  3. Merel Van der Vaart and Areti Damala. 2015. Through the Loupe: Visitor Engagement With a Primarily Text-Based Handheld AR Application. In Proceedings of the IEEE Digital Heritage 2015 Conference, vol. 2, 535-544. doi: 10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2015.7419574
  4. Jane Finnis. 2017. Let’s Get Real 5: What’s the Brand? Culture24
  5. Susie Ironside. 2013. Glasgow Museums. In Museum Practice 15.01.2013, Museums Association: London. Retrieved from: https://www.museumsassociation.org/museum-practice/youth-panels/15012013-glasgowmuseums
  6. Elena Not and Daniella Petrelli. 2018. Blending customisation, context-awareness and adaptivity for personalised tangible interaction in cultural heritage. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 114 (2018): 3-19.
  7. Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi and Kim Hermanson. 1999. Intrinsic motivation in museums: Why does one want to learn. The educational role of the museum, Routledge: London, 146–160.
  8. Isabelle Astic, Coline Aunis, Areti Damala, and Eric Gressier-Soudan. 2011. A ubiquitous mobile edutainement application for learning science through play. In Museums and the Web 2011 Proceedings. Retrieved from: https://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/papers/a_ubiquitous_mobile_edutainment_application_fo. html
  9. John Falk and Lynn Dierking. 2018. Learning from museums. Rowman & Littlefield.
  10. Areti Damala, Eva Hornecker, Merel van der Vaart, Dick van Dijk, and Ian Ruthven. 2016a. The Loupe: Tangible Augmented Reality for Learning to Look at Ancient Greek Art. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry. 16, 5 (2016), 73–85.
  11. Sara Perry, Maria Economou, Hilary Young, Maria Roussou, and Laia Pujol-Tost. 2017. Moving beyond the virtual museum: Engaging visitors emotionally. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM), IEEE, 1-8. doi:10.1109/VSMM.2017.8346276
  12. Luigina Ciolfi, Areti Damala, Eva Hornecker, Laura Maye, and Monika Lechner. 2018. Cultural Heritage Communities: Technologies and Challenges. Routledge.
  13. Donald Norman. 1999. Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions 6(3), 38-43.